The Tabernacle of David

Because in the tabernacle of David, God has given us a special foreshadowing of the church.

"As the ark of the LORD came into the city of David"
(2 Samuel 6:16.)

The City of David, which is Zion, is where the ark was placed, in a tent that David pitched for it. First he took Zion by force from the Jebusites."Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David." (2 Samuel 5:7) This can be seen as Jesus binding the strongman and making a way to Zion. Paving the way of holiness. The way of the cross. Then David brought the ark to the tent he had prepared for it. And he did it with much joy, while others, like Michal scorned him. This can be seen as Jesus leading his Church to eternal glory in Zion. The joy set before him in the midst of scorn and persecution. For Jesus has prepared a place for us and leads us home. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? (John 14:2). And the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.(Isaiah 35:10)

Praise God! Jesus made a way and leads us home! the world may hate us but he has overcome the world! God loves the Gates of Zion! His beloved children enter there with joy unspeakable. He endured the cross for the Joy set before him. How he delights in those who walk in the Way!

There is a stark contrast between the tabernacle of Moses being the foundation of carnal ordinance under the law and the tabernacle of David built upon an understanding of the true desire of God to have mercy rather than sacrifice. I don't think it has anything to do with the physical buildings of course as they were practically identical in layout and in function although one was a tent and the other a stone building. David had an understanding of what it was the God truly desired. His was a tabernacle of praise as well. The 24/7 worship that went on there must have been fantastic. This was not required by law, but was instituted by David. David had great insight into God's desire to restore man to right relationship through mercy rather than through the sacrificial systems of the law which, by the way, could never restore man to right relationship as they could never make those offering the sacrifices perfect before God. David understood something more than this and had a glimpse of the new covenant.

In these amazing Scriptures, James and the Holy Spirit equate the tabernacle of David with the Gentile church

Actually, the tabernacle of David is not equated to the Church in these Scriptures. "The tabernacle of David," in the prophetical writings, of which Acts quoted, was specifically refering to the fallen throne of David. At the time of the deportation of the Jews from their land to Babylon, the "tabernacle of David" fell and ceased to exist. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, has restored the fallen theocratic throne, as the prophets had anticipated.

Naturally (or should I say, supernaturally), as the Church, we have been made partakers of David's house, Jew and Gentile alike. But the phrase, "tabernacle of David," is a label specific to the dynasty of the the kings of Judah, beginning with David.

We must be careful to not spiritualize prophecy. We need to be careful to read it in its historical and grammatical context.

And just an additional note: What we have in the restoration of the tabernacle of David, is the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, that through his seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth would be blessed. The raising up of the Messiah, on the throne of David, of the nation of Israel, is prophetically significant in the releasing of God's universal blessing to all of mankind in the earth.

Spoken like a true textulist, very sad.

I'm sorry you don't believe in being faithful to the literal interpretation of Scripture. The Spirit says what the text says, not imagined allegorizations. Don't get me wrong, there are places for allegorizations. I've used them and will use them, and the Biblical authors used them. But, based on what the text says, this isn't appropriate in this instance.

Scripture has so much rich meaning. Let's draw from "the plain meaning of the text" first, and secondary meanings, when appropriate. In this instance, Peter was being a "textualist" and meaning what the prophet spoke.

A great sermon, on this very topic by the way:

Art Katz - Restoring the Tabernacle of David.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=12166&commentView=itemComments

A (short) complimentary essay by Art would also be:

On Interpreting the Scripture - https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=23557

Christ is foreshadowed in
the tabernacle. Everything
within the tabernacle points
to the atoning work of the
Savior!!

Because in the tabernacle of David, God has given us a special foreshadowing of the church.

Yes, of the church. But not specifically the churches of the Gentiles.

Why do you think the Holy Spirit equated the tabernacle of David with the Gentile church?

The Holy Spirit equated not the Gentile church, but the bringing of the Gentiles INTO the church, with the tabernacle of David. And the reason is because the tabernacle of David had none of the ritual of the Law attending it. It was something new and prophetic that God inspired David to bring into being. There were no sacrifices offered there, nor any of the priestly ritual. And all it had in it was the Ark.

And so when the elders and apostles gathered to examine the controversial question of whether Gentiles who believed in Jesus were required to keep the Law, after much discussion, this is what happened:

--They all spoke their minds about this, and then the whole gathering came to a time of quietness (Acts 15.13).

--Then James spoke up and summed things up, saying that Peter (Simeon) had declared how God had begun to "take out of the Gentiles a people for His Name" (15.14).

--And the prophets agree with this, James said (15.15). James could have quoted any one dozens of passages from the prophets that speak of the bringing in of the Gentiles, but he chose this one from Amos 9.11,12 quoting from the Septuagint:

"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue (or remnant) of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world" (15.16-18).

--And so James concluded that since the tabernacle of David was not associated with the ordinances and rituals of the Law, the Gentiles could be brought into this new work of God-- the New Covenant-- without keeping the Law of Moses. James did suggest that the Gentiles observe two or three things just by way of being inoffensive to Jews who were still observing the Law of Moses in their area (15.19-21).

And so, the tabernacle of David, I believe, is prophetic of the New Covenant-- and of the church-- in which "the residue of men," that is, men from both Judah and Israel, AS WELL AS the Gentiles upon whom God's name is called, might come together as one in a very unstructured kind of way-- in just a tent with the Presence of God-- the Ark-- being its one distinguishing characteristic. That's by and large what characterized the early churches. The early churches in their simplicity were the fulfillment of this beautiful order called the "tabernacle of David."

...Something from which church in our day, generally speaking, has sorely departed.

(What I've said above is a short summary of this. For more on it see From Tent to Temple at www.georgewarnock.com.)

Yes, of the church. But not specifically the churches of the Gentiles.

Indeed, we must be careful to guard ourselves against the tendency to equate the Church as simply a gentile phenomenon. I've seen some well meaning students of the word equate the two. But the two are not one in the same. The Church belongs to Jew and Gentile alike.

If only we could learn to agree with the apostles of the New Covenant, and their interpretation of Scripture.

In Acts 15 James takes this passage from Amos about the restoration of the tabernacle of David and applies it to something that was happening right at that very moment. Amos' prophecy of God building again the tabernacle of David-- at least according to the apostle James-- was something that referred to the church.

Yet many teachers who, it seems, know better than James, disagree with him, and teach that God will yet restore the earthly order, and the tabernacle of David will be set up again in the earthly Zion in earthly Jerusalem... in the day God restores the kingdom to natural Israel.

That's bad exegesis. They will wait for that in vain. The tabernacle of David was originally set up on Mount Zion of old. It was an earthly hill in an earthly city. But its fulfillment, according to a New Covenant apostle, is in THE CHURCH... which is in the heavenly Zion in the heavenly Jerusalem, at least according to another apostle of the New Covenant, that is (Heb. 12.18-23).

...I think I will go with those guys. To spiritualize the Scriptures the way they did-- and it was not they who did it but the Holy Spirit that was in them, the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ-- is the only way to interpret them aright.

I'm curious, do you believe Isaiah 53 was generally interpreted by the Lord and his apostles literally, or spiritually?

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15:15-18

The cause:

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up

The resulting effect:

That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The cause: Jesus Christ raised up again the fallen house of David, and sat upon the empty throne.

The effect: Men amongst the Gentiles seeking the Lord

One does not need to "spiritualize" anything here. The apostle simply used a literal interpretation of the passage.

There are indeed passages the apostles quote in other instances that they use in a spiritualized context. But this isn't one of them.

There are indeed passages the apostles quote in other instances that they use in a spiritualized context. But this isn't one of them.

If this is to be interpreted strictly literally, how can the church be the fulfillment of the tabernacle of David (which it is)? For the church is not a literal tent on an earthly hill in an earthly city.

I'm not sure by your last post, but I think you misunderstood my point. The church isn't the tabernacle of David, Jesus is. David's throne was left empty with the exile, and even upon return to the land. Jesus in His Messianic role restored the fallen house (tabernacle) of David.

Clear???

I'm curious, do you believe Isaiah 53 was generally interpreted by the Lord and his apostles literally, or spiritually?

Jimmy, there are many Scriptures that Christ, when He came in the flesh, fulfilled literally. I do believe there is yet a greater fulfillment of a lot of them, but certainly He fulfilled many Scriptures literally.

I believe that He was literally born in Bethlehem. I believe Mary his mother was, literally, a virgin. I believe He died on a literal Cross... and was actually, physically raised from the dead.

Hope that satisfies your curiosity.

...But I'll just add this: I don't know why people get scared of talk about spiritualizing the Scriptures. The spiritual dimension is the realm of the true, the real. Spiritual reality is REAL. To spiritualize the Scriptures is not to theorize them, or to etherealize them... as though they now have no real substance and reality. There is an order God has established: first the natural, then the spiritual. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual" (1 Cor. 15.46).

And so, after the resurrection, Christ ascended to the Throne of David in the heavenly Zion, and sent forth His Holy Spirit into His waiting disciples. And His apostles by the Spirit of the ascended Christ now took many Old Testament passages and interpreted them in a new light. And... what can be said? It's just awesome, just awesome, these things they set forth! May our Lord in mercy anoint our eyes with eyesalve, and grace our eyes to see!

...I always go by the rule that the Old Testament Scriptures must be interpreted now, and seen now, in the Light of the New, always with the help of the Holy Spirit, of course.

If we can't acknowledge that, we are going to get very mixed up when it comes to interpreting Scripture. We will truly be out to sea without steerage... though not literally, of course. :)

The church isn't the tabernacle of David, Jesus is

Is the bride one with Jesus? Of course the bride that is walking in disobedience to the covenant is not one with the Lord but is married to another, for it is his image of the beast that she takes. Which bride are you? from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

I'm not sure by your last post, but I think you misunderstood my point. The church isn't the tabernacle of David, Jesus is. David's throne was left empty with the exile, and even upon return to the land. Jesus in His Messianic role restored the fallen house (tabernacle) of David.

I don't know where you get this, Jimmy. I don't see anywhere in Scripture that the tabernacle of David is the "fallen house of David."

The tabernacle of David was that tent that David set up on Mount Zion and into which he brought the ark of the Covenant instead of returning it to the old tabernacle which was set up at Gibeon.

The church isn't the tabernacle of David, Jesus is.

No, Jesus is the King who sits IN the tabernacle of David... on the Throne of David in the heavenly Zion, ruling and reigning over all. That has powerful implications.

For the tabernacle of David-- at least according to the apostle James' interpretation of Scripture-- is the church.

...I do think I understand why you don't want to acknowledge this. It's because of that teaching that when Jesus returns he'll set up the tabernacle of David in old Jerusalem and rule from there, from that earthly Zion hill in natural Israel. James didn't seem to know that teaching, apparently. In Acts 15, he related the prophecy of the tabernacle of David to the church.